OTAGO HARBOUR BOARD.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 16243, 28 November 1914, Page 11

OTAGO HARBOUR BOARD.

The regular meeting of the Otago Harbour Board, held last, evi iiing, was attended by Messrs J. M. Dickson (in the chair, in the iubsencc of Mr If. E. Moller), Loudon, Hcoilay, IVelcher, Walker, Taphy. Ritchie. Wilkinson, Platts, Russell, llatnel, and ilazletl. HVN'lv BALANCE. Tho bank pass Ixjoks allowed a net credit balance of £6187 2s Id. STANDING COMMITTEE'S RUrOHT. The Standing Committee's report was as follows:—Your commiitee recommends, with respect to iho letter from the town clerk advising that the council considers that better protection would be provided by larger water mains than by motor lire pump, and is prepared to increase (at an estimated cost (if £1300) the size of mains in Wharf and Rattray streets to 6in mains, provided the board pays half cost, that consideration be deferred until a plan and information are received from the City Council, showing what work is included in tho estimate, and it has been considered by the sub-committee set up in connection with tho matter. That, with respect to the letter from the Otago Expansiop League suggesting conference between representatives of the Harbour Board, Chamber of Commerce, and Employers' Association, relative to West Coast and other coastal shipping services, etc., Messrs Belcher, Loudon, and Taptey be appointed tho board's delegates to such conference. That tho letter of Mr A. Moritzson _ and Co. as to dues on peanuts be received, and consideration held over until the tariff is revised. That the next meeting of tho Standing Committee be held on December 14, and the board meeting on December 18. That the engineer and harbour muster's reports bo adopted. The report concluded with a comparative statement of revenue and expenditure for 1913-1914, which was as follows: —Revenue: For October, 1914, £8898; for October. 1913, £8442. JanuaryOctober, 1914, £83,145; January-October, 1913, £79,528. Expenditure: For October, 1914, £7715; for October, 1913, £10,143; January-October, 1914, £83,846; JanuaryOctober, 1913, £87,145. Expenditure out of loan: October, 1914, £2610; October, 1913, £3950; January-October, 1914, £36,170; January-October, 1913, £35,334. Dock returns for October 'were set out as follow : — Otago Dock, one vessel; Port Chalmers j Dock, three vessels; slipway, one vessel; total charges, £170 2s. Tho dock revenue and expenditure follows : —Revenue: For October, 1914, £544; for October, 1913, I £743; January-October, 1914, £7736; January-October. 1913, £8596. Expenditure : For October, 1914, £806; for October, 1913, £899; January-October, 1914, £8697; January-October, 1913, £9135. The accounts recommended for payment were: General accounts, £5472 8s 6d; and dock accounts, £293 Os Id—The report was I adopted QUESTIONS BY MR BELCHER. _ The following is a series of questions by Mr Belcher with tho replies thereto : — What was the gross cost of equipping the dredge to suit local requirements?—£2444 17s 4d. I ask that a copy of the engineer s report for the purchase of dredge 404 from the Timaru Board be submitted—So far as ca.n bo ascertained in Mr Mason's absence, no written report wa6 submitted to the hoard. Any report was ma.de verbally to the Works Committee, which reported to the board. What was tho cost of laying the reinforced concrete on the Victoria wharf? — £1163 12s 6d. How far does it extend?— 536 ft. Why was it not continued? —In tho absence of the engineer, can only suggest that increased shipping prevented the wharf being closed for a sufficient period to allow the concrete to maftire. That tho report of the engineer on the question of the deoking of the Victoria wharf with reinforced concrete be submitted, and read to the meeting.—No record of any written report. PORT CHALMERS DOCK WHARF. Mr Platts, in accordance with notice given, moved—" That £5000 of the unallotted balance of tho loan of £150,000 bo allocated to the. construction of the dock wharf at Port Chalmers." Ho said he thought every member knew the necessity for this wharf. Tho proposal was to build tho wharf from the end of tho dock as far as the position that would be occupied by the sheer-legs. That was where tho heavy expense, of the work came in. It was there the ferro-concrete foundation for the sheerlegs was to bo placed. If a wharf were built up to the position of the 3heer-legs it would be sufficient for a berth, and a steamer going into dock could be handled more easily than at present. If the wharf were built it would obviate the possibility of damage beinj? done to vessels entering the dock. This was a work that really ought to have been gono on with some timo ago. Timber valued at £1000 had been purchased, and' had been lying on the ground for about a year. Mr Scollay seconded tho. motion. It was a necessary work in order to ensure the safe working of the docks. The money would bo practically all spent on labour as tho material for the work was already on the ground. Mr Hamel moved, as an amendment— "That the advisability or otherwise of the partial construction of the wharf authorised to bo constructed adjacent to the dock at Port Chalmers, such partial construction not to exceed £5000, be referred to the board's engineer for a report to tho next meeting of the board." The proposal was a reasonable one if it could be carried out for the sum named, but before the board moved in the matter it should bo guided by its responsible officer in the proper way. Mr Hazlett seconded the amendment. He believed the engineer had stated that the wharf would cost about £10,000 or more. There was really no urgent necessity for the wharf. Mr Loudon supported the. amendment. Ho had himself intended to move that the matter bo held over for a report from the engineer. Mr Tapley and Mr Ritchie spoke in favour of the amendments Mr Belcher said he intended to vote for the motion. It was understood as far back as tho days of tho Dock Trust that this wharf was to be constructed for the purpose of facilitating the docking of vessels. He had himself witnessed) the difficulty that now existed in the docking of a vessel. Tho vessel almost swung against the side of the dock, which woulif have been injurious to the vessel and to the dock, and if the wharf had been there the vessel would have swung against it. Tho work was absolutely necessary and essential. Mr Walker supported the amendment. Mr Loudon \raised the point that tho motion, was out of order, as the board in October last practically dccidod not to proceed with this work. The Chairman ruled the motion was in order. Mr Platts withdrew his motion in favour of tho amendment. The motion was accordingly withdrawn, and the amendment was carried. VICTORIA WHARF. Mr Belchcr moved —" That it be an instruction to the engineer to proceed with and complete the reinforced fcrro-concrete decking of the Victoria wharf; and that any further work done in this direction should bo diesgned so as to give a' watef outfall towards the harbour." Mr Loudon raised the same point as he had raised in connection with Mr Platts's motion, and the Chairman ruled that the motion before the meeting was in order. Mr Bclcher said that tho object he had in bringing forward tho motion was to find out tho c-ost of the decking in fcrro-con-crete of the Victoria wharf. Ho also wanted to know tho reason why it had not been continued right along' the wharf; and, further, that any futurb work contemplated in the same direction be done by a different system to which it was being done at the present time. It had been thought that it was good and proper to dcck the Victoria wharf with reinforced concrete, which was supposed to preserve the wharf and give tho best facilities for handling cargo. He would: like to know why the work was not continued. He noticed that so far as the decking with ferro-concret<> was concerned it had got into a most dilapidated state. They were given to understand when the work was started' that it was going to improve the condition of the wharf and facilitate the handling of cargo, but ho was satisfied that the men working these were ploughing through puddles of water with their trucks, and that valuable merchandise often fell off the truck into these puddles. * Mr Walker seconded tho motion, which was defeated. TENDERS. Tenders for the annual supply contracts were referred to a committee consisting of Messrs Wilkinson, Belcher, and Loudon, together with the engineer, to report to next meeting The board then went into committoc.